Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Finally snagged the PHB and MM today. Good gravy, I love the art (except for a few things in the PHB which seem kinda ehhh).
The race description pages were awesome. Way, way better than the ones in the 3.5 book. Can't wait to sit down and figure out what the first adventure is gonna be.
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited June 2008
So this has been mentioned before, but I haven't had the chance to really read threads in depth much this week - what's the deal with the Warlock's lousy to-hit? How are they supposed to compensate for that? It makes sense that Wizards are rolling INT vs Reflex or whatever, because they're firing off big fuck-off AoE blasts that will usually hit something, but my Warlock is getting seriously - and, I think, understandably - discouraged with miss after miss despite having 16's in his prime scores.
Originally I thought that they were expected to take advantage of flanking, but the AoO rules don't seem to make an exception for ranged attacks at someone adjacent to you. Any suggestions for how to improve my friend's aim - or at least balance-related justifications for why he's having such a hard time? I'd really rather avoid changing the rules by DM fiat if at all possible.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
The warlocks I've been with hit very, very frequently.
So this has been mentioned before, but I haven't had the chance to really read threads in depth much this week - what's the deal with the Warlock's lousy to-hit? How are they supposed to compensate for that? It makes sense that Wizards are rolling INT vs Reflex or whatever, because they're firing off big fuck-off AoE blasts that will usually hit something, but my Warlock is getting seriously - and, I think, understandably - discouraged with miss after miss despite having 16's in his prime scores.
Originally I thought that they were expected to take advantage of flanking, but the AoO rules don't seem to make an exception for ranged attacks at someone adjacent to you. Any suggestions for how to improve my friend's aim - or at least balance-related justifications for why he's having such a hard time? I'd really rather avoid changing the rules by DM fiat if at all possible.
I've noticed this as well, but I've only played a couple games (essentially lvl 2 right now). I'd suggest picking up a rod as soon as possible if you don't have one. Rods confer an attack bonus at all times as well as grant some pretty awesome powers later on.
so ive been listening to the pa/pvp playing dnd podcasts, and with this 5th one they have a new dm, and compared to the dm in the last four podcats, is it just me or is the new guy a giant douchebag?
You understand that every class is designed with a role in mind, right? You aren't supposed to "do everything". Plus your con of 14 is pretty much a waste, IMO. Your strength covers your Fort defense, and four hitpoints doesn't really seem worth gimping your attacks, damage, reflex defense, and armor class.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
so ive been listening to the pa/pvp playing dnd podcasts, and with this 5th one they have a new dm, and compared to the dm in the last four podcats, is it just me or is the new guy a giant douchebag?
How do they have a new DM? Isn't this just one session chopped up?
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Con 14 isn't a waste if I want a damn crossbow later on without wasting points into it repeatedly every level. And Strength works with Brutal Scoundrel for an addition damage modifier, and the 16 dex/cha allows me to do many of the roguey things I want without any trouble.
Assuming an opp attack, my rogue/ranger at level 1 does on average 18.5 damage on and at-will.
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
You understand that every class is designed with a role in mind, right? You aren't supposed to "do everything". Plus your con of 14 is pretty much a waste, IMO. Your strength covers your Fort defense, and four hitpoints doesn't really seem worth gimping your attacks, damage, reflex defense, and armor class.
Con 14 isn't a waste if I want a damn crossbow later on without wasting points into it repeatedly every level. And Strength works with Brutal Scoundrel for an addition damage modifier, and the 16 dex/cha allows me to do many of the roguey things I want without any trouble.
Assuming an opp attack, my rogue/ranger at level 1 does on average 18.5 damage on and at-will.
16, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8 + halfling/goblin/drow = the same thing with one less Con. The only way to not easily start with an 18 in your class' prime stat is if you don't have a racial bonus to that stat. Of course, you are allowed to play a half-orc wizard if you want, but you're not really allowed to complain that half-orcs make crappy wizards.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
You understand that every class is designed with a role in mind, right? You aren't supposed to "do everything". Plus your con of 14 is pretty much a waste, IMO. Your strength covers your Fort defense, and four hitpoints doesn't really seem worth gimping your attacks, damage, reflex defense, and armor class.
Try telling this to a warlord.
Warlords have three important stats: Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma. If they're so hung up on their hitpoints, they can either take Toughness or put their 13 in Con.
I think people are forgetting that high Con isn't as universally awesome as it was in previous editions.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
Con 14 isn't a waste if I want a damn crossbow later on without wasting points into it repeatedly every level. And Strength works with Brutal Scoundrel for an addition damage modifier, and the 16 dex/cha allows me to do many of the roguey things I want without any trouble.
Assuming an opp attack, my rogue/ranger at level 1 does on average 18.5 damage on and at-will.
16, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8 + halfling/goblin/drow = the same thing with one less Con. The only way to not easily start with an 18 in your class' prime stat is if you don't have a racial bonus to that stat. Of course, you are allowed to play a half-orc wizard if you want, but you're not really allowed to complain that half-orcs make crappy wizards.
What if you're a class (Like Paladin) that demands three stats all be pretty effective?
Maybe you'd rather have 16/16/14 in that case over 18/14/14
Halflings, drow, and goblins MAKE BETTER ROGUES. If you want to play the "against the grain" dwarven rogue, FINE! But understand that other rogues will hit more often for more damage. And please don't whine about it.
Or, if you want, we can just give all races the human stat bonuses and be done with it. Then no one will be better than anyone else.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited June 2008
It's not so much what you're saying as what you're encouraging.
It's not so much what you're saying as what you're encouraging.
We've gone over this argument before: the philosophy of 4E is that characters fit roles. Along those lines, races optimize roles. I don't see the problem here; it's not like I'm using some wonky point system where you can make your character an epileptic, narcoleptic, nearsighted pyro with bad B.O. and raise your strength to a million. I am using the RAI: to make characters awesome at what they do.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Hey, pony, if I get combat advantage I get 1d6 + 6 + 2d6 + 2 + 1d6 with my rogue on a single target.
Fun stuff.
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
It's not so much what you're saying as what you're encouraging.
We've gone over this argument before: the philosophy of 4E is that characters fit roles. Along those lines, races optimize roles. I don't see the problem here; it's not like I'm using some wonky point system where you can make your character an epileptic, narcoleptic, nearsighted pyro with bad B.O. and raise your strength to a million. I am using the RAI: to make characters awesome at what they do.
I think I've pinpointed exactly what I dislike about 4e now.
Elldren on
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
It's not so much what you're saying as what you're encouraging.
We've gone over this argument before: the philosophy of 4E is that characters fit roles. Along those lines, races optimize roles. I don't see the problem here; it's not like I'm using some wonky point system where you can make your character an epileptic, narcoleptic, nearsighted pyro with bad B.O. and raise your strength to a million. I am using the RAI: to make characters awesome at what they do.
Man, I know DnD is a combat heavy game.
But this feels like making a 20 str half orc fighter with 28 point buy all over again.
It's not so much what you're saying as what you're encouraging.
We've gone over this argument before: the philosophy of 4E is that characters fit roles. Along those lines, races optimize roles. I don't see the problem here; it's not like I'm using some wonky point system where you can make your character an epileptic, narcoleptic, nearsighted pyro with bad B.O. and raise your strength to a million. I am using the RAI: to make characters awesome at what they do.
I think I've pinpointed exactly what I dislike about 4e now.
Shit, they put a name behind a concept that's been there since the beginning of the genre and everyone gets all butthurt.
It's not so much what you're saying as what you're encouraging.
We've gone over this argument before: the philosophy of 4E is that characters fit roles. Along those lines, races optimize roles. I don't see the problem here; it's not like I'm using some wonky point system where you can make your character an epileptic, narcoleptic, nearsighted pyro with bad B.O. and raise your strength to a million. I am using the RAI: to make characters awesome at what they do.
I think I've pinpointed exactly what I dislike about 4e now.
Shit, they put a name behind a concept that's been there since the beginning of the genre and everyone gets all butthurt.
That doesn't suddenly make me like the concept.
Edit: but this is neither here nor there. I'm not griping about the system, it's a good system. I just had an epiphany and felt like sharing.
Elldren on
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited June 2008
.... Is there a conversation going on here that I'm not aware of, Zen?
Edit: wait, I just got it, nevermind.
And play something that isn't class based. Like WFRP, which lets you play your plucky chefs rising to the occasion and saving the word.
It's not so much what you're saying as what you're encouraging.
We've gone over this argument before: the philosophy of 4E is that characters fit roles. Along those lines, races optimize roles. I don't see the problem here; it's not like I'm using some wonky point system where you can make your character an epileptic, narcoleptic, nearsighted pyro with bad B.O. and raise your strength to a million. I am using the RAI: to make characters awesome at what they do.
I think I've pinpointed exactly what I dislike about 4e now.
Shit, they put a name behind a concept that's been there since the beginning of the genre and everyone gets all butthurt.
That doesn't suddenly make me like the concept.
Edit: but this is neither here nor there. I'm not griping about the system, it's a good system. I just had an epiphany and felt like sharing.
How can you not like the idea of different classes being good at different things?
Because that is essentially what roles are... clerics have always played a different role than mages, for example, why is that a problem?
INeedNoSalt on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Took you a bit, Waffle.
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
.... Is there a conversation going on here that I'm not aware of, Zen?
Edit: wait, I just got it, nevermind.
And play something that isn't class based. Like WFRP, which lets you play your plucky chefs rising to the occasion and saving the word.
I do. I prefer entirely classless systems. I just was weaned into the whole RP thing with D&D, so it's mostly nostalgia that has me checking the thread. I am really not trying to ruin anyone's fun by saying this, but as I said a thread ago D&D isn't really for me. I honestly just recognized precisely why in delro's post.
I do. I prefer entirely classless systems. I just was weaned into the whole RP thing with D&D, so it's mostly nostalgia that has me checking the thread. I am really not trying to ruin anyone's fun by saying this, but as I said a thread ago D&D isn't really for me. I honestly just recognized precisely why in delro's post.
THEN GO PLAY GURPS JERKFACE! :P
Seriously, though, not every game needs to have a million different options to make characters fun to play. Besides, generalists are only great for groups of one to three people; otherwise everyone just makes specialists using the generic rules anyways. If you had five 2nd Ed bards in a group, the group would not be fun to play for your average dungeon crawl. It would be like having a(n American) football game with nothing but running backs.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
It would be like having a(n American) football game with nothing but running backs.
Personally I think American Football would be vastly improved in the same way Hockey would. Allow blunt weapons onto the field.
Still, I agree with a lot of things said by several people, but my opinion is this:
D&D does one thing, and does it well. Heroic fantasy adventure, revolving around going out, killing things, taking their stuff, hocking what you don't want/can't use back in town, and learning how to kill bigger stuff better, rinse repeat. D&D is, and always has been, and probably always will be, primarily a dungeon crawler.
I maintain that the game itself is intended as such, and that anything else you do is not the game, it is you. This is not necessarily a bad thing, nor do I see it as a flaw. D&D does what it means to do, and doesn't fuck you up with anything else.
This is, incidentally, also why I rarely play D&D. I love some heroic fantasy as much as the next guy, but D&D tends to break down when you think too much about it. When you look at the book and say "That doesn't make SENSE", and then fix it... you're not really trying to play D&D anymore. You're not supposed to think too much about D&D. It's not precisely the paragon of being internally consistent in terms of "fluff (and GOD I HATE THAT WORD in this context, fucking hell...).
But it is good at what it does, and thus, I play it occasionally, when I am in the mood for what it does do.
so ive been listening to the pa/pvp playing dnd podcasts, and with this 5th one they have a new dm, and compared to the dm in the last four podcats, is it just me or is the new guy a giant douchebag?
How do they have a new DM? Isn't this just one session chopped up?
They switched DMs and went to lvl3 between episodes 4 and 5. I understand the first DM is like one of the best at WOtC, hard act to follow.
Maybe PC's average fewer hits vs monsters in this edition.
Has anyone compared the chance to hit % of a 3.5th edition lvl1 fighter vs his 4 edition twin?
Or it could just feel worse to miss because of the power system.
Posts
The race description pages were awesome. Way, way better than the ones in the 3.5 book. Can't wait to sit down and figure out what the first adventure is gonna be.
Originally I thought that they were expected to take advantage of flanking, but the AoO rules don't seem to make an exception for ranged attacks at someone adjacent to you. Any suggestions for how to improve my friend's aim - or at least balance-related justifications for why he's having such a hard time? I'd really rather avoid changing the rules by DM fiat if at all possible.
Maybe you're just unlucky.
I've noticed this as well, but I've only played a couple games (essentially lvl 2 right now). I'd suggest picking up a rod as soon as possible if you don't have one. Rods confer an attack bonus at all times as well as grant some pretty awesome powers later on.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
I have, as a rogue, 16 dex, 16 cha, and 14 str along with 14 con.
Multi-classing with that helps.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
How do they have a new DM? Isn't this just one session chopped up?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Assuming an opp attack, my rogue/ranger at level 1 does on average 18.5 damage on and at-will.
16, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8 + halfling/goblin/drow = the same thing with one less Con. The only way to not easily start with an 18 in your class' prime stat is if you don't have a racial bonus to that stat. Of course, you are allowed to play a half-orc wizard if you want, but you're not really allowed to complain that half-orcs make crappy wizards.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Min-max?
Awesome.
Warlords have three important stats: Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma. If they're so hung up on their hitpoints, they can either take Toughness or put their 13 in Con.
I think people are forgetting that high Con isn't as universally awesome as it was in previous editions.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
What if you're a class (Like Paladin) that demands three stats all be pretty effective?
Maybe you'd rather have 16/16/14 in that case over 18/14/14
So.
Dismissive non-argument?
Aewsmoe.
Halflings, drow, and goblins MAKE BETTER ROGUES. If you want to play the "against the grain" dwarven rogue, FINE! But understand that other rogues will hit more often for more damage. And please don't whine about it.
Or, if you want, we can just give all races the human stat bonuses and be done with it. Then no one will be better than anyone else.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Wasn't your other guy a bugbear
Pony do you always play monsters?
We've gone over this argument before: the philosophy of 4E is that characters fit roles. Along those lines, races optimize roles. I don't see the problem here; it's not like I'm using some wonky point system where you can make your character an epileptic, narcoleptic, nearsighted pyro with bad B.O. and raise your strength to a million. I am using the RAI: to make characters awesome at what they do.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Fun stuff.
I think I've pinpointed exactly what I dislike about 4e now.
But this feels like making a 20 str half orc fighter with 28 point buy all over again.
The only real issue is that people who have inflexible natures will have an extra piece of text to back up their boring natures.
But who ever wanted to game with those guys anyways.
That doesn't suddenly make me like the concept.
Edit: but this is neither here nor there. I'm not griping about the system, it's a good system. I just had an epiphany and felt like sharing.
Edit: wait, I just got it, nevermind.
And play something that isn't class based. Like WFRP, which lets you play your plucky chefs rising to the occasion and saving the word.
I mean I even had the term fleshweavers going for something I've been working on...
How can you not like the idea of different classes being good at different things?
Because that is essentially what roles are... clerics have always played a different role than mages, for example, why is that a problem?
No, Incen.
You are the wizards.
Lies.
Lies.
Maybe not all lies.
But lies.
I do. I prefer entirely classless systems. I just was weaned into the whole RP thing with D&D, so it's mostly nostalgia that has me checking the thread. I am really not trying to ruin anyone's fun by saying this, but as I said a thread ago D&D isn't really for me. I honestly just recognized precisely why in delro's post.
THEN GO PLAY GURPS JERKFACE! :P
Seriously, though, not every game needs to have a million different options to make characters fun to play. Besides, generalists are only great for groups of one to three people; otherwise everyone just makes specialists using the generic rules anyways. If you had five 2nd Ed bards in a group, the group would not be fun to play for your average dungeon crawl. It would be like having a(n American) football game with nothing but running backs.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
ahahahaha
Personally I think American Football would be vastly improved in the same way Hockey would. Allow blunt weapons onto the field.
Still, I agree with a lot of things said by several people, but my opinion is this:
D&D does one thing, and does it well. Heroic fantasy adventure, revolving around going out, killing things, taking their stuff, hocking what you don't want/can't use back in town, and learning how to kill bigger stuff better, rinse repeat. D&D is, and always has been, and probably always will be, primarily a dungeon crawler.
I maintain that the game itself is intended as such, and that anything else you do is not the game, it is you. This is not necessarily a bad thing, nor do I see it as a flaw. D&D does what it means to do, and doesn't fuck you up with anything else.
This is, incidentally, also why I rarely play D&D. I love some heroic fantasy as much as the next guy, but D&D tends to break down when you think too much about it. When you look at the book and say "That doesn't make SENSE", and then fix it... you're not really trying to play D&D anymore. You're not supposed to think too much about D&D. It's not precisely the paragon of being internally consistent in terms of "fluff (and GOD I HATE THAT WORD in this context, fucking hell...).
But it is good at what it does, and thus, I play it occasionally, when I am in the mood for what it does do.
They switched DMs and went to lvl3 between episodes 4 and 5. I understand the first DM is like one of the best at WOtC, hard act to follow.
Maybe PC's average fewer hits vs monsters in this edition.
Has anyone compared the chance to hit % of a 3.5th edition lvl1 fighter vs his 4 edition twin?
Or it could just feel worse to miss because of the power system.